Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer....Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

The war movies of the late 21st century are going to be radically different from what we've seen before.

Anyways - Women in Denmark and the other Nordic Countries have been in the line of fire in the military for a few years by now. Its by no means a big percentage and there are no clear results from the data yet, but here is a pretty interesting article from one of the Danish women who has been in direct combat.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, I just hope the standards for combat units are not lowered.

Aye, it seems like that is the idea as well, as I understand it.

Quote

"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.

Anyways - Women in Denmark and the other Nordic Countries have been in the line of fire in the military for a few years by now. Its by no means a big percentage and there are no clear results from the data yet, but here is a pretty interesting article from one of the Danish women who has been in direct combat.

When I was a sergeant in training, I served along with several women. Some of them were horrible soldiers, and some of them were amongst the best soldiers I've ever met. I'm surprised it took the US this long to catch up, though I guess a lot of it can be contributed to a ready supply of fresh soldiers. Norway isn't quite as lucky with our limited population size.

This is wiki's explanation of the word - At first I thought you qouted that, but you didnt, as your deleted post mentioned, Ceekay.

Quote

Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1] The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry, the hatred or dislike of men; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, the love or fondness of women.

This thread is about giving women equal opportunity in the army, and the first thing we get is semi-naked women...

I'm sort of torn on this issue... One of the worst thing to fuck up unit cohesion is throw women and sex into the mix, but faster advancement in the US military comes with frontline combat experience and women should have access

I don't know.. US Infantry training was pretty fucking brutal when I served and I just have a hard time seeing women dealing with that shit

I'm sort of torn on this issue... One of the worst thing to fuck up unit cohesion is throw women and sex into the mix, but faster advancement in the US military comes with frontline combat experience and women should have access

I don't know.. US Infantry training was pretty fucking brutal when I served and I just have a hard time seeing women dealing with that shit

I too have a hard time seeing women actually perform at the regular infantry level, but I'm glad they will have the chance. The problem is that frontline troops might start refusing combat orders if they suspect that their fellow women counterparts cannot perform to their own level. I wouldn't want someone next to me going out on a mission that could not carry all their own equipment, plus a wounded infantryman on their shoulders for a med evac.

Wow, that's an impressive bit of gender sterotyping there, guys! Take it from someone who's actually served with female soldiers: They're every bit as capable as male soldiers, if not more due to the ingrained attitudes from males they have to fight against. The average woman might not have the same muscle capacity as their male counterparts, but they wouldn't get through basic training if they weren't able to do their jobs properly.

There's a hint of "women shouldn't be allowed to vote, for they are too busy in the kitchen to understand the world of politics" in this debate, and it's a good idea to make sure we don't stumble into that little trap.

Seriously though,if they or anyone can do the job that should be enough,that goes for Gay Soldiers as well,which was an issue a few months back

Like Raz and TiLT though,i think Women soldiers have been the norm for the UK for awhile as well,and for some reason i thought it was the same in the States,so it is surprising that this is only just coming to light now

Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

Seems to me that the women that qualify will have no problem pulling their own weight, as it were.

I don't think that women are incapable. That's not my issue. It's the added wrinkle of what happens when things go bad...like Kato alluded to with carrying a wounded squadmate, etc. Thoughts of the added wrinkle of what could happen to a woman (not that it doesn't happen to men) if they are captured by hostile forces also concerns me.

Face it, we're going to be squaring off against Jihadists for the foreseeable future and in many cases women are less than dogs to them.

Think of the Jessica Lynch story. It became a priority to rescue her specifically because she was a woman (at least that's my take in a haze of memory around the story) and the public was not ready to deal with a female POW falliing into enemy hands. I know I'm not.

When the first airplane flew, it was big news. now they only cover crashes, and even they aren't all headlinesrs. A woman POW tugs at our modern consciousness as interesting. When people get over it, it will not matter in that way - instead of "our sons" it will be "our sons and daughters" or better still: "our children".

Consider starship troopers shower scene. I was impressed with the brave representation of how sexuality didn't matter, because we don't think about sex all the time.

As for Raz's comment, ... naw, I'm gonna not let that one get to me.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 12:42:50 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Wow, that's an impressive bit of gender sterotyping there, guys! Take it from someone who's actually served with female soldiers: They're every bit as capable as male soldiers, if not more due to the ingrained attitudes from males they have to fight against. The average woman might not have the same muscle capacity as their male counterparts, but they wouldn't get through basic training if they weren't able to do their jobs properly.

There's a hint of "women shouldn't be allowed to vote, for they are too busy in the kitchen to understand the world of politics" in this debate, and it's a good idea to make sure we don't stumble into that little trap.

So the fact that Kato is retired military with recent combat experience means he's stereotyping?

Wow, that's an impressive bit of gender sterotyping there, guys! Take it from someone who's actually served with female soldiers: They're every bit as capable as male soldiers, if not more due to the ingrained attitudes from males they have to fight against. The average woman might not have the same muscle capacity as their male counterparts, but they wouldn't get through basic training if they weren't able to do their jobs properly.

There's a hint of "women shouldn't be allowed to vote, for they are too busy in the kitchen to understand the world of politics" in this debate, and it's a good idea to make sure we don't stumble into that little trap.

So the fact that Kato is retired military with recent combat experience means he's stereotyping?

No. I never even said anything like that. I said the two of them were stereotyping women, not that Kato was stereotyping women because of his combat experience. I'm not trying to dig into the reasons behind what they said. I'm merely responding to their actual statements. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't overthink it.

What I find interesting is that whenever the issue of women in combat comes up the discussion at first glance would indicate we are still fighting wars as if it were 1916. There is more to war than the infantry now. We have jets and helicopters. Women have been able to enter fighter pilot training since 1993. I don't recall any negative repercussions of that eligibility since then. Women have been in Army aviation since the 1990s and some flew (and some still fly) combat support missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I understand it, lifting the ban on combat also means recognizing that the women who currently fly attack and support mission are actually in combat and and thus get that entered into record for possible promotions later. Or were they officially recognized as combat troops the moment they were allowed to fly combat support missions?

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush."Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."

In previous cases, Conservatives have argued that military personnel are too small-minded and immature to tolerate the presence of Jews, non-caucasians, women, or gay people among their ranks. First the objection was to allowing them to serve at all, then to allowing them into positions of responsibility or authority, and always on the catch-all grounds of "weakening military morale."

The reality is, because American servicemen are not mentally or emotionally equivalent to a locker room full of 13-year-old boys from the year 1940, the predictions of the Conservative movement have been proven false every time. I can't imagine why anyone would assume they're onto something this time, but personally, I will believe combat roles for women represent a clear and present danger to national security fifteen minutes after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell triggers that total collapse of military discipline we heard so much about.

In previous cases, Conservatives have argued that military personnel are too small-minded and immature to tolerate the presence of Jews, non-caucasians, women, or gay people among their ranks. First the objection was to allowing them to serve at all, then to allowing them into positions of responsibility or authority, and always on the catch-all grounds of "weakening military morale."

The reality is, because American servicemen are not mentally or emotionally equivalent to a locker room full of 13-year-old boys from the year 1940, the predictions of the Conservative movement have been proven false every time. I can't imagine why anyone would assume they're onto something this time, but personally, I will believe combat roles for women represent a clear and present danger to national security fifteen minutes after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell triggers that total collapse of military discipline we heard so much about.

Emancipation, women's suffrage, desegregation, the Civil Rights Act, anti-semitism, gender discrimination, the Americans With Disabilities Act, sexual harassment law, hate crime legislation, the Fair Pay Act, gay rights -- every time America raises the idea of expanding the rights and protections for the voiceless members of society, the Conservative movement has been there to represent the losing side of history. Many of the popular ones still do it: Ann Coulter will happily explain how women lack the intellectual capacity to responsibly vote, both Senators Paul are on record opposing the Civil Rights Act, and Rush Limbaugh's daily show has a daily three-hour show dedicated to telling "real Americans" how their moral Christian lifestyles are being endangered by the blacks, the feminists, and the gays.

At what point are we, as a nation, ready to agree that histrionics from the Conservative Right about how expanded rights will sound the death knell of the Republic are automatically the least credible element of any public policy debate?

This is wiki's explanation of the word - At first I thought you qouted that, but you didnt, as your deleted post mentioned, Ceekay.

Quote

Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1] The male counterpart of misogyny is misandry, the hatred or dislike of men; the antonym of misogyny is philogyny, the love or fondness of women.

This thread is about giving women equal opportunity in the army, and the first thing we get is semi-naked women...

Apologies for misspelling the word though! English is hard!

Yep clearly English is hard. Youre stating that the sexual objectification of women in this thread is misogny. That would be incorrect. In fact most of the sexual objectification of women is done by people who are as far from misogynistic as humanly possible. Just because misogyny can be manifested as sexual objectification of women, it does not mean that any sexual objectification of women is misogyny. Otherwise you are a misandrist as you have been know to post pictures that sexual objectify men.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were Republicans, so let's not lump everyone into one big ball. Every party has extremists. The conservatives in the GOP are not all descendants of plantation owners trying to bring back the old days, or keep women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were Republicans, so let's not lump everyone into one big ball. Every party has extremists. The conservatives in the GOP are not all descendants of plantation owners trying to bring back the old days, or keep women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

but Mitt Romney does have some nice binders full of women.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

Seems to me that the women that qualify will have no problem pulling their own weight, as it were.

Yep and it is also time for them to start registering for Selective Service.

Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

Seems to me that the women that qualify will have no problem pulling their own weight, as it were.

Yep and it is also time for them to start registering for Selective Service.

Like I said before, I am for having anyone serve in a line company. Gender, sexual orientation, or whatever else. We need all the talent we can get. All they need to do is make all physical tests and requirements at the same higher standard.

I've always hated this scenario in the Marines and in the Army:

Lets say a male Marine goes up for a meritorious promotion board, and it's down to him and a female Marine. Both have identical shooting, awards and education points. However the male Marine has tested at a 2nd class personal fitness score while the female scores a 1st class. She wins the board and gets promoted.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were Republicans, so let's not lump everyone into one big ball. Every party has extremists.

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to quibble about minutae when I point out that I was discussing social ideology -- Conservatism -- not party affiliation. I see them as very different things.

Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were hardcore liberals of their respective ages. They believed, as liberals do today, that the federal government has a vital role to play in expanding individual rights for the public good; and they were opposed by Conservatives who, as they do today, threatened to inflict grievous harm on the country if they didn't get their way.

The fact that they were members of the Republican party is a different consideration. The political parties are *constantly* adopting different ideological positions to win over voters. I know a great many thoughtful, well-educated Republicans who absolutely detest how the modern Conservative movement has perverted their party, and who retain their affiliation in the hope of voting some semblance of sanity back into the primaries. My mother's entire side of the family falls into that category.

You'll find I try to be very careful to specify when I'm talking about Conservatism, the social ideology that has spent two hundred years arguing in favor of Social Darwinism where wealth, power, and privilege are definitive elements of moral righteousness; and the Republican party which has only recently decided their best shot at winning more political power is to give that contingent control over the whole kit'n kaboodle.

There's a world of difference between USMC Kato's point about compromising physical standards for combat units simply for the sake of allowing women to qualify, and the idea that military decision making is inherently compromised by the presence of bewbs.

My thoughts are that when men statistically demonstrate superior upper body strength, women have better hand-eye coordination and faster reflexes, and they're both selfless enough to put their lives on the line for their country, I suspect there are enough roles on the battlefield to go around.

Of course, Kato has forgotten more about military tactics than I'll ever know, so if there are compelling reasons why a women can't load torpedo tubes on a submarine, pilot an A-10 Thunderbolt, or command an Abrams tank, I'll defer to his knowledge on the subject.